Akamia wrote:I think it's up for debate as to whether that comment is actually misogynistic or just plain mean-spirited. I already knew Sargon is an ass, that's one of the reasons I stopped watching him a long time ago aside the rare case someone I know links one of his videos to me on Discord.

Nah, it's clearly misogynistic AND mean-spirited.

For the rest, I mentioned that earlier - I don't know whether SofA is actually a misogynistic moron, or whether that's just his schtick to appeal to his usual audience of angry MRA's. But for me, either which way makes him a very unappealing person, and certainly not one I'd wish a platform for.

Not much context given with the quote, but there's nothing sexist about it.

I think there were gold-digging whores who would accept fucking Harvey Weinstein for cash and then we're hearing from the few that either didn't or did and regret it

Explain how he is negatively stereotyping women when he's talking about a very specific case of sexual abuse involving over a dozen women. He's not talking about women in general. Do over a dozen women represent ALL women?? Also, are you going to imply that no "gold-digging whores" have ever existed? There's a difference between being against negative stereotyping and assuming women can do no wrong. Guess what? They can. Well, then again gold-digging isn't wrong as long as there's a mutual understanding. I doubt any of these old guys actually think they found "true love" or whatever. Fuck, I'd like to be a gold-digging male whore, sign me up with an old lady, I'll take that over my regular job.

Just on a personal note, I'm not buying these accusations either. This trend to multiple women coming out years or decades after the fact all at once against one man is not believable to me. They're more than welcome to prove it in court, otherwise I don't care.

Tree wrote:Not much context given with the quote, but there's nothing sexist about it.

I think there were gold-digging whores who would accept fucking Harvey Weinstein for cash and then we're hearing from the few that either didn't or did and regret it

Explain how he is negatively stereotyping women when he's talking about a very specific case of sexual abuse involving over a dozen women. He's not talking about women in general. Do over a dozen women represent ALL women?? Also, are you going to imply that no "gold-digging whores" have ever existed? There's a difference between being against negative stereotyping and assuming women can do no wrong. Guess what? They can. Well, then again gold-digging isn't wrong as long as there's a mutual understanding. I doubt any of these old guys actually think they found "true love" or whatever. Fuck, I'd like to be a gold-digging male whore, sign me up with an old lady, I'll take that over my regular job.

Just on a personal note, I'm not buying these accusations either. This trend to multiple women coming out years or decades after the fact all at once against one man is not believable to me. They're more than welcome to prove it in court, otherwise I don't care.

When you want me to do something, you will either learn to ask me, or you will find yourself being disappointed in the response you get to commanding me to perform tricks for you.

Further, if you are unable to note sexism in calling women 'whores', especially victims of sexual harassment, then your opinion about it is probably not worth the time writing whatever it is you wrote. Perhaps try reasoning rather than knee-jerking?

1. They're not proven to be victims of sexual harassment. This is nothing more than an assertion and sorry SJWs, I'm not going to "listen and believe". You claim you were harassed, raped whatever, prove it. I have no idea how you will accomplish that decades after the fact, but you're welcome to try.

2. He didn't call women in general whores.

Granted Sargon cannot prove that they are "gold-digging whores" either, he simply offered his opinion. He didn't assert as fact that the women in question are gold-digging whores.

3. There's a case to be made that being a whore isn't a bad thing inherently.

Of course, the fact that many of his colleagues knew about his harassment, and that he routinely paid people off would suggest there's justification to see guilt.

Tree wrote: This is nothing more than an assertion and sorry SJWs, I'm not going to "listen and believe".

Why do you trot out these mentally deranged boogeymen, Tree? This is not Youtube, no one is impressed by you conjuring up spectres of groups of people you ideologically detest.

Tree wrote:You claim you were harassed, raped whatever, prove it. I have no idea how you will accomplish that decades after the fact, but you're welcome to try.

Again Tree, you are positioning yourself as someone who is relevant to anything. You're not.

Instead, the sad fact is that for much of human history, women didn't have a voice and were systemically unable to challenge sexual harassment. But the tide has changed.

Tree wrote:2. He didn't call women in general whores.

Red herring.

No one said he called 'women in general' whores. Rather, as was quite explicitly stated, he called the victims of sexual harassment 'whores'.

Tree wrote:Granted Sargon cannot prove that they are "gold-digging whores" either, he simply offered his opinion. He didn't assert as fact that the women in question are gold-digging whores.

Your specious hole is impressive. He could've meant they were actually miners who dug for precious metals, and who prostituted themselves on the altar of hard work, amirite? Let's see how hard we can work to pretend he didn't mean what he said.

Tree wrote:3. There's a case to be made that being a whore isn't a bad thing inherently.

No, there's no case to be made that labeling a group of women who are the victims of sexual harassment 'whores' isn't a bad thing - what it actually is is sexist.

He "routinely paid them off"? Okay... and? Even if you find the money trail you still have to prove what it was for.

Sorry, I'm not going to accept the claim they're "victims" just because they say so. Let's have a real investigation with a real trial if necessary.

Instead, the sad fact is that for much of human history, women didn't have a voice and were systemically unable to challenge sexual harassment. But the tide has changed.

We didn't have wires either to secretly record it, but no voice at all? How do you know that? Each circumstance is different, I don't think you can generalize. A lord in medieval Europe could probably get away with it in many cases. I can imagine that, a peasant man harassing a lady? Nah, someone would kick his ass and they wouldn't need a trial.

If they were married especially, their husband would kick your ass, if not, their father or brother would kick your ass - and these people wouldn't wait for a trial to do it. This idea that men could just get away with it is not true.

Rape allegations - there's a chance the town would lynch you for that.

In the US women could accuse black men of horrible things and they'd get lynched too.

Anyway it's simply not true that women were "systemically unable" to challenge sexual harassment and the same goes for rape and assault.

Tree, considering that each and every time you've tried this form of red herring I've identified it as a red herring and pointed out how utterly useless it is to try such smoke and mirrors, it's frankly amazing that you still think it's going to work the next time.

Who says that his co-workers are obliged to testify under oath? What does this have to do with anything? You're trying, once again, to play Ultimate Arbiter. Can you just get over yourself already?

Tree wrote:He "routinely paid them off"? Okay... and? Even if you find the money trail you still have to prove what it was for.

Read what I wrote instead of ignoring what I wrote.

You don't pay people off with millions of dollars just because. Didn't you get this one with Bill O'Reilly?

Tree wrote:Sorry, I'm not going to accept the claim they're "victims" just because they say so.

I don't care what you accept, nor I expect, does anyone else.

Tree wrote:Let's have a real investigation with a real trial if necessary.

It's amazing the lengths you go to in order to protect your heroes from criticism. Now we have to have a trial of Weinstein to decide whether or not Sargon of Akkad was sexist in calling a group of women 'whores'?

I really don't think we do, Tree. I really think that it doesn't matter how much you try to obfuscate here, it's pretty clear that labeling a group of women 'whores' is sexist, as sexism is assuredly about negatively stereotyping people because of gender.

Tree wrote:We didn't have wires either to secretly record it, but no voice at all? How do you know that?

How do I know.... what?

Can you finish your sentences, please?

Why are you once again amending my restricted comment to be about something else entirely?

Tree wrote:Each circumstance is different, I don't think you can generalize.

And I think if you generalize that a group of women are 'whores', it's unarguably sexist.

Tree wrote: A lord in medieval Europe could probably get away with it in many cases. I can imagine that, a peasant man harassing a lady? Nah, someone would kick his ass and they wouldn't need a trial.

Agreed (with the caveat that you are playing a whatabout game), but considering the ratio of peasants to nobility, this still leaves the vast majority of cases to be unpunished.

Of course, this is not really what we were talking about, but do go on.

Tree wrote:If they were married especially, their husband would kick your ass, if not, their father or brother would kick your ass - and these people wouldn't wait for a trial to do it. This idea that men could just get away with it is not true.

Who said that 'men could just get away with it'?

Why can you never respond to what is written?

Why do you incessantly make up arguments on my behalf?

I submit that it's because it's easier for you when you can make up my arguments for me than respond to the ones I make.

Tree wrote:Rape allegations - there's a chance the town would lynch you for that.

Lynch who? Are you sure you're making any sense to anyone except you?

Tree wrote:In the US women could accuse black men of horrible things and they'd get lynched too.

Yes, this foray into particulars is very interesting, but it's very hard to see quite how all these extended diversions somehow mean that calling a group of women 'whores' isn't sexist.

Tree wrote:Anyway it's simply not true that women were "systemically unable" to challenge sexual harassment and the same goes for rape and assault.

Says you. History says that in balance you are wrong.

Meanwhile, if we can move back away from the MRA prose, how does this mean that calling a group of women 'whores' isn't sexist?

how does this mean that calling a group of women 'whores' isn't sexist?

"Gold-digging whores" to be specific.

That depends on the group. It also depends on what your stance on gold-digging is. Maybe the person saying it doesn't like gold-diggers be they men or women, in which case that wouldn't be sexist since you're not asking for double standards.

how does this mean that calling a group of women 'whores' isn't sexist?

"Gold-digging whores" to be specific.

That depends on the group. It also depends on what your stance on gold-digging is. Maybe the person saying it doesn't like gold-diggers be they men or women, in which case that wouldn't be sexist since you're not asking for double standards.

Gold-digging is not particularly relevant, just doubles up the pejorative.

It doesn't depend on what my stance or gold-digging is or on any <insert distraction and hand-waving>, because as you can indubitably see, I am quite specifically talking about calling a group of women 'whores'.

If you're going to seek to distract away from the point, I think you might need to try considerably harder.

Each and every time you try one of these, the same thing happens. I point out that no such comment was actually said and offer you the opportunity to cite where it was, and you fail to do so.

Perhaps in your imagination, the distraction was worthwhile in and of itself, but the litany of strawmen, ad hominem, and red herrings is highly expository about your capacity for reasoned discourse, and as you appear to be challenged in that department, it then goes to show why you argue such stupid positions all the time.

Tree wrote:There are lots of reasons people might call a group of women whores.

1. Maybe they are whores.

The only good reason to call a group of women 'whores' is that they are prostitutes, and even then it's a bit crass.

Tree wrote:2. Maybe the person in question doesn't like whores be they men or women.

You tried this one twice already, and it still doesn't work.

Tree wrote:3. Maybe they just want to be a dick to people.

Yes, maybe - and then they would be considered a dick. So back to your original whining about how Sargon of Akkad is unfairly treated due to political reasons - then no, this would suggest the reason he got deplatformed is because he acts like a dick, political preferences notwithstanding.

And as we're well within the realm of repetition now, being a dick and being sexist are not mutually exclusive, so yeah, SoA was being a sexist dick *shrug*.

Tree wrote:Actual sexism is much harder to prove than just saying "wah someone said a mean word".

Actual sexism has a definition, and it's one you desperately try to avoid while plying your flights of fancy.

Calling a group of women 'whores' who have been - even if you want to say 'allegedly' - sexually assaulted goes far into the realm of negative stereotyping, intimating that the blame is on them, due to them being whores, for being the target of that sexual harassment. The subtext is that they wanted it - that's the 'gold-digging' bit.

Please do keep expending so much energy obfuscating away from this. It's just like when Creationists think they can employ different meanings of words to suit their arguments, and actually expect other people to conform.

Any which way, calling a group of women 'whores' is sexist, calling victims of sexual harassment 'whores' is unarguably sexist - but do keep trying anyway!

We don't know what happened. Maybe they were sexually assaulted/raped/harassed, maybe they're gold-diggers with regrets, maybe they just want to lie for attention. Maybe it's a combination of some legitimate complaints vs. phony ones for attention/money.

I'm not going to speculate too much, but if Sargon wants to do that, at worst he's jumping to conclusions. But that doesn't make him a sexist. His view of what happened is plausible. And maybe he knows something that I don't. Why don't you ask him why he thinks that?

We really need to stop this trend of accusing people of racism and sexism on flimsy evidence. It's getting silly and it makes you look like the boy who cried wolf.

Tree wrote:We don't know what happened. Maybe they were sexually assaulted/raped/harassed, maybe they're gold-diggers with regrets, maybe they just want to lie for attention. Maybe it's a combination of some legitimate complaints vs. phony ones for attention/money.

I think there is blame on both sides....?

Yeah, this is just typical MRA bollocks - blame the victims of sexual harassment.

Tree wrote:I'm not going to speculate too much,...

Beyond all the speculation you've already engaged in to try to paint the labeling of a group of women as whores to be justified? Yeah, I expect you're tired out after that.

Tree wrote:but if Sargon wants to do that, at worst he's jumping to conclusions.

No, it's sexist - if you lack the capacity to see that, you should probably stop flapping your trap.

Tree wrote: But that doesn't make him a sexist.

It makes his contention that the victims of sexual harassment as 'whores' sexist, because that's exactly what sexism is.

Tree wrote:We really need to stop this trend of accusing people of racism and sexism on flimsy evidence. It's getting silly and it makes you look like the boy who cried wolf.

What we need to do is counter the trend of alt-right fuckheads being racist and sexist then whining when their behavior is accurately labelled as such. They're not the victims, no matter how much they play the identity politics card or act like snowflakes all upset for their spade being called a spade. The victims are those who are targeted by their sexist and racist bullshit.

Tree wrote:Well sorry, but if you want to be THE atheist movement, you have to accept everyone,

No one is obliged to accept sexist, racist fucktards.

Whether they believe in gods or not is completely irrelevant.

Sargon of Akkad is a bigot, a 4chan troll who revels in using the internet to abuse people, and he always picks the softest targets because he's a bully, and that's just what bullies do. Atheism is wholly irrelevant to his platform. It wouldn't matter tomorrow if he said he believed in a god (unlike if the actual, legitimate skeptics were to suddenly profess this) because his content is not about skepticism, religious belief, or theism - his content is about hating groups of people to make money from 4chan style trolls who find such behavior funny.

So there really is no obligation whatsoever to accept him, because by accepting him you are pushing out all the groups of atheists/skeptics he abuses, people who are hardly going to be interested to pay to attend a convention where someone who routinely hates on them is given a spotlight.

Tree wrote:We don't know what happened. Maybe they were sexually assaulted/raped/harassed, maybe they're gold-diggers with regrets, maybe they just want to lie for attention. Maybe it's a combination of some legitimate complaints vs. phony ones for attention/money.

I think there is blame on both sides....?

No, I'm literally saying we don't know what happened.

And it's not 2 sides, it's 1 guy vs. multiple accusers, not all of which should be assumed to be truthful. Even if you prove one accusation, it doesn't automatically mean the others are true. Each has to stand on its merit.

Yeah, this is just typical MRA bollocks - blame the victims of sexual harassment.

More circular reasoning.

First prove they are victims of sexual harassment. Or rape. Or assault. The accusation itself is not evidence. Sparhafoc, you raped me, see how easy it is to accuse people?

Beyond all the speculation you've already engaged in to try to paint the labeling of a group of women as whores to be justified? Yeah, I expect you're tired out after that.

So no women are ever whores, it's totally impossible?

And I as said, I don't know all that Sargon knows.

No, it's sexist - if you lack the capacity to see that, you should probably stop flapping your trap.

If you don't believe in Jesus' salvation you just need to open your heart.

It makes his contention that the victims of sexual harassment as 'whores' sexist, because that's exactly what sexism is.

That assumes Sargon accepts their claim of being victims of sexual harassment.

He does not.

Yeah, bollocks.

Why would it be "bollocks"? Are you honestly suggesting no women have ever spread malicious lies about their former partners?

Cause let me assure you, both men and women do that. People can be nasty, it's human nature.

And I don't care what they claim, only what they can prove. If this happened, show us the evidence. If you can. These allegations are not going to be adequately addressed in the news, you need a trial for that.

What we need to do is counter the trend of alt-right fuckheads being racist and sexist then whining when their behavior is accurately labelled as such. They're not the victims, no matter how much they play the identity politics card or act like snowflakes all upset for their spade being called a spade. The victims are those who are targeted by their sexist and racist bullshit.

Yes, I'm sure that the guy who trolled the alt-right with interracial gay porn is somehow alt-right.

Yes, I know exactly what you're saying - or at least, what you're trying to say.

Tree wrote:And it's not 2 sides, it's 1 guy vs. multiple accusers, not all of which should be assumed to be truthful. Even if you prove one accusation, it doesn't automatically mean the others are true. Each has to stand on its merit.

Multiple accusers, and colleagues who acknowledge that they knew about his behavior, and the fact that there are multiple accusations of the same thing does tend to lend some credibility to it.

It's the same situation in a court of law. If there's only one witness, perhaps that person was wrong, or mistaken - but if lots of people saw the same thing, then a higher bar has been met.

Of course, this isn't to say that X, or Y, or Z - but it's funny how hard you're working to delegitimize sources of victim's harassment, somehow, so it seems, to justify Sargon of Akkad's sexist abuse, which isn't sexist, and is justified, and maybe means something else, and obviously was said because he has special knowledge, and, and, and, and, and....

It's Morton's Demon working overtime.

Tree wrote:

Yeah, this is just typical MRA bollocks - blame the victims of sexual harassment.

More circular reasoning.

Probably best if you learned what circular reasoning is prior to spouting more inanities.

Plus, of course, there's no previous circular reasoning for this to be 'more'.

It's frankly intriguing how much bollocks you spout and expect it to float!

Tree wrote:First prove they are victims of sexual harassment. Or rape. Or assault. The accusation itself is not evidence. Sparhafoc, you raped me, see how easy it is to accuse people?

No, there's no need to prove they are victims of sexual harassment, because we are not holding trial on what happened with respect to these allegations of sexual harassment - we are supposedly talking about Sargon of Akkad calling them all 'whores' - but you never seem able to maintain a conversation without pouring all your energies into obfuscation.

Again, even if other members here disagree with my position, they're still more than competent at seeing through your repeated obfuscatory bollocks.

Tree wrote:

Beyond all the speculation you've already engaged in to try to paint the labeling of a group of women as whores to be justified? Yeah, I expect you're tired out after that.

So no women are ever whores, it's totally impossible?

Another red herring. Like the 50 times you tried it before and failed didn't teach you how easy it is for me to spot this and call it. /shrug

They say madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Tree wrote:And I as said, I don't know all that Sargon knows.

You said a lot of stupid things in your blind defense of him, but of course, you do know that he doesn't know that are all the women he called whores are actually whores either, but you're more than prepared to lend him the benefit of the doubt because you're not actually interested in what's true, it's all schtick and no meat.

Again, it's sexist. If you can't process this, then best if you stop flapping your knob around pretending you're doing something and start learning.

Tree wrote:

No, it's sexist - if you lack the capacity to see that, you should probably stop flapping your trap.

If you don't believe in Jesus' salvation you just need to open your heart.

It makes his contention that the victims of sexual harassment as 'whores' sexist, because that's exactly what sexism is.

That assumes Sargon accepts their claim of being victims of sexual harassment.

Of course it doesn't because Sargon of Akkad has no special knowledge, is not omniscient, and has no evidence on which to form any relevant contention. Instead, he does what he always does and accuses women of being at fault because that's how he appeals to angsty teens, and men who never grew up.

Tree wrote:He does not.

So he rejects their claims on specious grounds - that just makes him a twat. But that was already apparent.

Tree wrote:

Yeah, bollocks.

Why would it be "bollocks"? Are you honestly suggesting no women have ever spread malicious lies about their former partners?

Tree wrote:Cause let me assure you, both men and women do that. People can be nasty, it's human nature.

An egg is comprised of eggshell, albumen, and vitellus and is the organic vessel containing this zygote.

Wednesday is the day after Tuesday, and the one before Thursday. The word comes from the Old English Wōdnesdæg, itself rooted in Anglo-Saxon, and all the way back to the Norse beliefs which spawned it.

The price of fish changes a lot - sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower, but it is definitely not correlated to the price of tea in China.

Of course you didn't because you don't have anything worth saying at all - the only agenda here is to deflect valid criticism from the sexist Sargon of Akkad because his 4chan style trolling appeals to you.

Tree wrote:And I don't care what they claim, only what they can prove. If this happened, show us the evidence. If you can. These allegations are not going to be adequately addressed in the news, you need a trial for that.

Because we're discussing the trial of Weinstein, not talking about Sargon of Akkad calling them 'whores'? Oh wait...

Funny how dramatically different your burden of proof is - all these people need to go to trial in order to establish their allegations, but Sargon of Akkad gets to call them all whores because - hey, why not - and maybe he knows something - and of course he can say that - and he doesn't need to prove anything - and, and, and, and....

Wave your hands some more.

Tree wrote:

What we need to do is counter the trend of alt-right fuckheads being racist and sexist then whining when their behavior is accurately labelled as such. They're not the victims, no matter how much they play the identity politics card or act like snowflakes all upset for their spade being called a spade. The victims are those who are targeted by their sexist and racist bullshit.

Yes, I'm sure that the guy who trolled the alt-right with interracial gay porn is somehow alt-right.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and shits all over everything that ducks shit on... then even if it has a bad day where it doesn't want to be a duck, it's still a fucking duck.

But yeah, of course another red herring on your part.

Tree wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:No one is obliged to accept sexist, racist fucktards.

Okay buddy, then don't pretend to speak for them either, very simple.

I am not pretending to speak for them - I am speaking against them and you're doing all you can to defend them.

Sparhafoc wrote:Multiple accusers, and colleagues who acknowledge that they knew about his behavior, and the fact that there are multiple accusations of the same thing does tend to lend some credibility to it.

It's the same situation in a court of law. If there's only one witness, perhaps that person was wrong, or mistaken - but if lots of people saw the same thing, then a higher bar has been met.

As I said, get them on the witness stand first. Let's see if they're going to say the exact same thing under oath when they're under penalty of perjury. Outside the court, people can say any shit they want usually consequence free and without being challenged by an attorney.

Plenty of people sing a completely different tune once they're actually there.

No, there's no need to prove they are victims of sexual harassment, because we are not holding trial on what happened with respect to these allegations of sexual harassment - we are supposedly talking about Sargon of Akkad calling them all 'whores' - but you never seem able to maintain a conversation without pouring all your energies into obfuscation.

Yes, there is a need to prove that they are victims, especially when you keep saying they're "victims" and keep saying that Sargon is abusive to "victims".

Instead, he does what he always does and accuses women of being at fault because that's how he appeals to angsty teens, and men who never grew up.

Or to people who just find it suspicious that so many people that are allegedly victims of a crime all waited until 2017 to report the crime.

It's not about them being women. If 80 men reported being extorted for 10000$ by the same guy over a period of 30 years, I'd be kinda suspicious of their real motives too. I'd be like, really, it never occurred to any single one of you to maybe get wired up? What exactly makes this one guy so scary anyway? Is he in the mafia or what?

Sparhafoc wrote:If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and shits all over everything that ducks shit on... then even if it has a bad day where it doesn't want to be a duck, it's still a fucking duck.

Except none of that applies.

Sargon's politics are pretty standard centrist positions, maybe a bit to the left but without going anywhere near crazy land SJWism.

What exactly do you find radical about his support of capitalism but with some social programs like universal healthcare and regulations, support for gay marriage, pro-equality but against identity politics and language policing, pro-choice, support for secularism, national autonomy, laws being decided by British people, not by EU, securing borders and immigration must benefit his country, not everyone comes in.